Pew Study: Drudge Report More Trusted Than CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS

Capture

Independent media titan beats mainstream networks

by Paul Joseph Watson | October 21, 2014

A Pew Research study has found that the Drudge Report, the most pre-eminent independent media source on the web, is trusted by the American public more than CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or CBS.

While the likes of MSNBC and CNN are distrusted by 22% and 20% respectively in the poll, only 9% of respondents said that they distrusted the Drudge Report, a figure on a par with NPR.

The Washington Post, the New York Times and the Huffington Post are all more distrusted than Drudge.

Drudge’s bracketing with the likes of NPR, BBC and Bloomberg suggest that the high level of trust is not merely because the respondents haven’t heard of the Drudge Report, a factor that probably explains why the likes of Think Progress and the Daily Kos appear near the bottom of the list.

The study found that Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the Glenn Beck Program were the most distrusted news sources, which is probably due to the fact that all three offer staunch conservative views likely to cause polarization amongst liberal respondents to the poll.

In general, trust in mainstream press continues to collapse, with a September 2014 Gallup poll revealing Americans’ confidence in the media’s ability to report “the news fully, accurately, and fairly” returning to an all time low of 40%.

In addition, many of MSNBC’s flagship shows, such as Morning Joe and The Rachel Maddow Show just posted some of their lowest quarterly ratings results ever, emphasizing how Americans are turning away from network media and getting their news from more varied and independent sources.

“You know there’s a problem with the media when Al-Jazeera is trusted more than NBC, CNN, and MSNBC,” remarks Zero Hedge.

View the Pew results below.

Capture
Capture

Greta Van Susteren reveals ‘weird’ WH arm-twisting to get Fox to back down on Benghazi reporting

Capture

The White House asked host to tamp down Pentagon reporter Jennifer Griffin’s investigation of the Benghazi affair

by Bizpac Review | September 7, 2014

Fox News Channel host Greta Van Susteren told her viewers the White House asked her to tamp down Pentagon reporter Jennifer Griffin’s investigation of the Benghazi affair, which she could only describe as “weird.”

In her “Off the Record” segment on Friday, she reviewed how Fox News has been the only major news organization to fearlessly pursue the Obama administration’s stonewalling of the September 11, 2012 attack on America’s Libyan consulate and the deaths of four brave men.

After characterizing the quest for getting information as “pulling teeth,” and the Susan Rice/Obama sideshow blaming the YouTube video for provoking the assault, Van Susteren said, “A few weeks later, when Fox news reporter Jennifer Griffin said she was told there was a stand-down order at Benghazi, I got a weird call from the Obama administration trying to pressure me to get Jennifer to back down on her report.”

“I thought the call from the Obama administration was dirty,” she concluded. “Incidentally, I don’t control my colleagues and they don’t control me.”

GOP REP. MO BROOKS TELLS INGRAHAM: DEMS LEADING A ‘WAR ON WHITES’

Countering assertion that GOP’s anti-immigration policies turning them into “party of white people”

by Evan McMurry | 2:45 pm, August 4th, 2014

On Laura Ingraham’s radio show Monday, Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL) accused the Democrats of waging a “war on whites.”

Brooks was countering an assertion by Ron Fournier on Fox News Sunday that the GOP’s anti-immigration policies were turning them into a “party of white people,” which would culminate in a debilitating demographic disadvantage. Brooks flipped that around.

“This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party,” he said. “And the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else. It’s part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things. Well that’s not true.”

“Every single demographic group is hurt by falling wages and lost jobs,” he continued. “So the Democrats, they have to demagogue on this and try and turn it into a racial issue, which is an emotional issue, rather than a thoughtful issue. If it becomes a thoughtful issue, then we win and we win big. And they lose and they lose big.”

Ingraham called the “war on whites” characterization “a little out there.” “That phraseology might not be the best choice,” she said.

This Democrat Congresswoman’s Office Used The IRS As A Threat Against Someone Who Called In To Ask A Question

Andrew Clark | August 1st, 2014
When Dwayne Horner called Democrat Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee’s office to ask a question, he probably didn’t think he would be treated rudely. But that’s precisely what happened.

In a speech on the House floor, Jackson Lee said that Democrats did not try to impeach President Bush when he was in office. That is false – in fact, she was a cosponsor of a 2008 bill that tried to do just that!

Horner called her office, asking her to explain the blatant contradiction. First, he got an admission of guilt. “We are aware that the congresswoman has made contradicting statements in her remarks on the floor,” the person who answered the phone said. Then, Horner spoke to another staffer.

“Oh look it here, we have one of those right wing, tea-bagger nut jobs on the phone taking his cues from FOX News,” said staffer told Horner. After Horner reminded him that he was a taxpayer, and that taxpayer dollars fund her office, he replied, “I doubt you even pay taxes and the IRS will find you soon enough.”

Using the IRS – in light of the IRS scandal – to threaten a caller? Congresswoman Jackson Lee, call your office. Actually, don’t, because if that’s how they treat taxpayers, I’m not sure you’ll want to.

From PJ Media:

That was startling. I asked to speak to someone in the office to register my thoughts on a congresswoman lying on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. From there, it got crazy but not as crazy, and then a little crazier.

I was transferred to a gentleman on Lee’s staff. When I again asked him about the contradiction and stated that perhaps I was confused, the man said “Oh look it here, we have one of those right wing, tea-bagger nut jobs on the phone taking his cues from FOX News.”

He then accused me of being un-American, raising his voice at me while asking me to calm down, and telling me that I am just on some mission to destroy our country. When I calmly asked for his name, he said “I don’t have to give it to you because I don’t want to show up on some right wing blog and be on your Twitter account.” Keep in mind, I never said who I was – he just made assumptions and attacked me. When I reminded him that he gets paid by our tax dollars, he said “I doubt you even pay taxes and the IRS will find you soon enough,” and hung up on me.

IN THE US: 4 MAJOR NEWS NETWORKS, ZERO BILDERBERG 2014 COVERAGE

IN THE US: 4 MAJOR NEWS NETWORKS, ZERO BILDERBERG 2014 COVERAGE

Full-on press blackout testament to dinosaur media’s growing irrelevance

In the US: 4 Major News Networks, Zero Bilderberg 2014 Coverage
by ADAN SALAZAR | INFOWARS | JUNE 1, 2014

With the exception of 24-hour cable news providers, Americans rely on 4 major television networks to deliver them information regarding important world events: ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox.

It is with predictable disappointment to announce all four networks failed to inform the public of a secretive and extremely exclusive meeting of central bankers, CEOs, public officials and world dignitaries taking place this weekend.

From May 29 through today, June 1, esteemed academicians, hand picked journalists, intelligence officials, world banking oligarchs and the CEOs and bosses of Royal Dutch Shell, Google and Microsoft, to name just a few, slinked behind closed doors at the Marriott hotel in Copenhagen, Denmark, to do God knows what.

But watching the major news networks and monitoring the domestic news wires, you’d never guess this meeting happened.

With the conference now into its fourth and final day, one would expect at least a trickle of articles from the mainstream press regarding Bilderberg 2014, if at the least to perform the routine mock, shame and ridicule of “tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists” claiming participants are working towards a “new world order.”

While past meetings have been afforded at least some press, this year neither of the four networks opted to cover Bilderberg 2014.

NBC was most upfront about it:

Other networks have awarded the meeting of elite power brokers press in the past, but for some reason didn’t find this year’s globalist shindig quite as enticing (click to enlarge):

cbs2

abc2

fox13

Indeed, the degree to which all four networks uniformly ignored the matter is a curious coincidence, leaving the door open for skeptics to argue they’ve been handed specific orders to disregard the assembly, colluding to perform what’s termed a “media blackout.”

“The reason they want secrecy is because they’re doing evil,” explained late veteran Bilderberg investigative journalist Jim Tucker. For decades, Tucker did tireless work attempting to expose the group, following them to multiple meeting locations around the globe and reporting on leaks concerning their un-official agendas. “Evil is done under the cover of darkness, good works are done in the sunshine.”

But surely, you ask, the top cable news network in the country, CNN, can devote at least a fraction of time or webspace to cover this important meeting? Nope. Are you kidding? They’re busy worrying about the next Clippers owner.

cnn2

To be fair, one of their hired propagandists, Jake Tapper, did do a superficial, surface report on the conference – last year – putting Bilderberg protestors on the same level as “bigfoot believers” and labeling Alex Jones a “provocateur.”

But surely the newspaper that carries “all the news that’s fit to print” would deem a meeting of elite power brokers “news”? Nope. Not this year.. Maybe that’s because some of its editors have attended past meetings.

“On its face, it makes no sense the corporate media would ignore and fail to report a confab comprised of newsworthy royal elites, chancellors, prime ministers, presidents, ambassadors, secretaries of state, Wall street bankers and investors, CEOs of transnational corporations, and corporate media executives,” writes Kurt Nimmo. “It makes no sense — that is until you realize the corporate media is owned and directed by this very same elite. In the past, darlings of the corporate media have attended Bilderberg meetings, including the late Peter Jennings of ABC, Joseph C. Harsch of NBC, the “liberal” Bill Moyers of PBS, the ‘conservative’ William F. Buckley, Jr., Robert L. Bartley of the Wall Street Journal, the neocon William Kristol, Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times, the late Katharine Graham of the CIA’s favorite newspaper, the Washington Post, Leslie Stahl of CBS, and many others. Many are also members of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.”

“Jim Tucker puts it best,” writes Michael Collins Piper for American Free Press. “If 140 of the world’s best known baseball players or movie stars gathered secretly under armed guard at an exclusive resort for an entire weekend, every major newspaper and magazine and all of the tabloids would be on hand, clamoring to get inside, demanding to know what was going on behind those closed doors. All of the television gossip shows would be chatting about it regularly. The whole world would know about that secret meeting in a heartbeat.”

Besides a limited number of American sites, and American sites owned by foreign governments, mainstream Bilderberg coverage this year has hovered around zero, a further indication of the dying dinosaur media’s increasing irrelevance.

But even if journalists ventured to Denmark, which Infowars reporters did, they wouldn’t get very far. Taxpayer-funded armed security details keep a 24-hour guard, huge eyesore fences block nosy journalists out and invitees are strictly forbidden from revealing anything discussed at meetings. Secrecy always trumps transparency at Bilderberg.

“I don’t think they’re happy about it, they prefer nothing at all, no publicity, they prefer absolute secrecy,” Tucker said in an interview, commenting on Bilderberg’s sentiments toward the growing media interest garnered in recent years.

The Bilderberg Group recently worked up the courage to put up a website.

wayback2

This gesture was in all likelihood spurred by incessant coverage from independent media, but it could also mean the group is now confident enough in their plans to move out from behind the curtain.

One thing’s certain.. Vice President Biden’s frequent hat tips to the “New world order” aren’t particularly reassuring.

But then again, maybe there is hope after all:

FACT CHECK: CLINTON’S BENGHAZI CHAPTER HAS HOLES

FACT CHECK: CLINTON’S BENGHAZI CHAPTER HAS HOLES

Clinton’s forthcoming memoir conflicts with facts

By Catherine HerridgePublished May 31, 2014FoxNews.com

Excerpts of Hillary Clinton’s forthcoming memoir obtained by Politico conflict with the factual record about what happened during and after the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.

Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who sits on the newly formed Benghazi select committee and the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News before the excerpts were released that he is concerned the administration has not fully grasped the impact of the terrorist assault.

“We know that intelligence analysts on the ground knew instantaneously that this was Al Qaeda and its affiliates who had led this attack. And yet it took an awfully long time — indeed today, it’s still not clear this administration has acknowledged the depth and the risks associated with what it means to have an Al Qaeda affiliate actually take down an American [consulate],” he said.

In the limited excerpts published Friday from Clinton’s Benghazi chapter, the former secretary of State continued to defend the administration from what she termed a “political slugfest.”

Specifically, she defended the flawed explanation — used by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice five days after the attack — that an obscure anti-Islam video fueled a protest gone awry in Benghazi.

“There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” Clinton wrote, according to Politico. “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video.It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions deny not only the evidence but logic as well.”

Further, she reportedly wrote that Rice relied on existing intelligence in making her statements.

But former CIA deputy director Mike Morell, who now works for Clinton’s principal gatekeeper Philippe Reines at the D.C. consulting firm Beacon Global Strategies, testified in April that it was Rice who linked the video to the Benghazi attack. Morrell, who still faces allegations he misled Congress over the so-called talking points, said the video was not part of the CIA analysis as Clinton seems to suggest.

Morell told members of the House Intelligence Committee that Rice’s claims about the attacks evolving from a protest were “exactly what the talking points said, and it was exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed.”

However, he said: “When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something that the analysts have attributed this attack to.”

An independent review of more than 4,000 social media postings, conducted by a leading social media monitoring firm in December 2012, also found the YouTube video was a non-event in Benghazi.

“From the data we have, it’s hard for us to reach the conclusion that the consulate attack was motivated by the movie. Nothing in the immediate picture — surrounding the attack in Libya — suggests that,” Jeff Chapman, chief executive with Agincourt Solutions (now Babel Street), told Fox News.

Chapman said his analysts reviewed postings in Libya, including those from Benghazi, over a three-day period beginning on Sept. 11, and saw “no traffic in Benghazi in the immediate lead-up to the attack related to the anti-Islam film.”

The first reference to the anti-Islam film appears to be a retweet of a Russia Today story that was not posted until Sept. 12 at 9:12 a.m. local time. The translation reads, “U.S. ambassador killed in Libya during his country’s consulate in Benghazi – Russia Today http://t.co/SvAV0o7T response to the film abuser.”

In addition, the video was also described as a non-event by Greg Hicks – deputy to Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack — in his May 2013 congressional testimony before the House oversight committee.

Clinton went on to write: “Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people.There is a difference between getting something wrong, and committing wrong.A big difference that some have blurred to the point of casting those who made a mistake as intentionally deceitful.”

But the written testimony of Morell shows the administration continued to stick with the “hateful video” explanation long after physical evidence and other intelligence showed there was no demonstration. Morell told the House Intelligence Committee that by Sept. 18, 2012, consulate security video reviewed by the Libyans showed it was a direct assault.

Yet, a week later, before the United Nations on Sept. 25, 2012, President Obama was still relying on the flawed explanation.

“There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents.There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy,” he said.

As part of its ongoing reporting, Fox News was first to report on Sept. 17, 2012, based on an intelligence source on the ground in Libya, that there was no protest.

Separate from the talking points, Clinton’s defense of Rice could also be problematic because Rice inaccurately stated on three network Sunday shows — ABC’s “This Week,” NBC’s “Meet the Press” and “Fox News Sunday” — that security was “strong” or “significant” at the consulate on the day of the attack.

She told “Fox News Sunday” that former Navy SEALs Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, who died in the attack, were there to “provide security,” incorrectly linking them to consulate security.

At a press conference earlier this month, Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said the administration should explain who briefed Rice on the talking points as well as the consulate’s security status, and the individual or individuals should be fired. And if nobody briefed her on that, Graham said, Rice should resign.

“They’re completely incompetent, or they were misleading her about the level of security because we were six weeks before an election, or she made it up on her own,” Graham said.

On requests for additional security, Clinton continued to insist that she never saw those cables, and the fact that they were addressed to her as secretary of State was a “procedural quirk.”

Fox News was first to report on an August 2012 State Department classified cable that said the U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault and concluded Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack.”

The authenticity of the classified cable, addressed to the office of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has never been challenged. It was significant enough that then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told lawmakers during congressional hearings that they were briefed on the cable’s warnings. Clinton, though, claimed it was not brought to her attention.

The cable marked “SECRET” summarized an Aug. 15, 2012 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi. It states that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.

According to a review of the cable, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.'”

In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. The details in the cable foreshadowed the deadly attack on the U.S. compound.

While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable undercuts those claims – as it warned the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack and indicates the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.

The Clinton book excerpts published Friday represent a fraction of the entire Benghazi chapter, which reportedly is 34 pages long.

Fox News’ Pamela Browne contributed to this report